|
Betting randomly to me is no different from betting the same. You are giving the opponent no information about your hand. The only difference, is when betting randomly your opponents probably won't notice, and will take your bet size to represent your hand strength, and they'll have that false information. Its your call on whether that's good or bad.
"If you raise the same each time, you may not give info but you do provide your opponent with predictability - he can work out his odds against you better, he can get an idea of how much you invest from each position etc. etc. It's a marginal disadvantage, I'm sure, but poker's all about the margins."
how can he get an idea of how much you invest from each position, when you raise the same from each position? working out odds i don't even think is a marginal advantage: you have to be able to figure out odds for all sorts of amounts, either you can figure out odds or you can't, i've never seen anyone be like "ok, he raised 4 dollars, i can draw with my suited connectors because his stack is XBB deep", then say "oh wow, he raised 3 dollars... that's 3, carry the 1..... aww shit i just fold."
"Yes, but when you have AA you want more money in the pot, when you have QQ you want to eliminate players. That's because AA wins more than 50% against nine random hands so it's even good enough to limp with. Queens, on the other hand, you want to get people out sometimes or go all-in with you. "
I disagree with this. The goals are the same with both hands: you want money in the pot early and often, and you don't want a ton of competition. the idea that AA is good for limping is a fallacy: if you do limp and see a flop with 9 people you will lose money. odds are, you will only get bets called when someone has you beaten.
|